IPCC admission from new report: 'no evidence climate change has led to even a single species becoming extinct'

In 2007, the IPCC predicted that rising global temperatures would kill off many species. But in its new report, part of which will be presented next Monday, the UN climate change body backtracks. There is a shortage of evidence, a draft version claims.

Global warming is said to be threatening thousands of animal and plant species with extinction. That, at least, is what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been predicting for years.

But the UN climate body now says it is no longer so certain. The second part of the IPCC’s new assessment report is due to be presented next Monday in Yokohama, Japan. On the one hand, a classified draft of the report notes that a further “increased extinction risk for a substantial number of species during and beyond the 21st century” is to be expected. On the other hand, the IPCC admits that there is no evidence climate change has led to even a single species becoming extinct thus far.

Source: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/new-un-climate-report-casts-doubt-on-earlier-extinction-predictions-a-960569.html

 

========================================================

Sunshine hours writes of another about-face from the IPCC:

Everytime I argue with members of the AGW Cult they claim we are in the midst of a “great extinction”. I ask them to name 10 species. When they can’t name any, I ask for 5. They usually come up with one animal that has been hunted to extinction (which is horrible, but not AGW)

Old Prediction:

“Global warming is said to be threatening thousands of animal and plant species with extinction. That, at least, is what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been predicting for years.”

New Confession:

 IPCC admits that there is no evidence climate change has led to even a single species becoming extinct thus far.”

Polar Bears Are Doing Fine:

“At most, the draft report says, climate change may have played a role in the disappearance of a few amphibians, fresh water fish and mollusks. Yet even the icons of catastrophic global warming, the polar bears, are doing surprisingly well. Their population has remained stable despite the shrinking of the Arctic ice cap.”

Models Suck at predicting extinctions:

“”There is very little confidence that models currently predict extinction risk accurately,” the report notes. Very low extinction rates despite considerable climate variability during past hundreds of thousands of years have led to concern that “forecasts for very high extinction rates due entirely to climate change may be overestimated.””

=============================================================

As Willis has said: Where are the corpses?

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

73 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 28, 2014 11:03 am

I remember saying that the extinction of species due to CAGW was a total pile of shite way back then. Why am I, who doesn’t have a penny to gain in the scam, correct yet again?

heysuess
March 28, 2014 11:07 am

Reality DROPS, right Al?
I had to check twice, because my first thought was ‘The Onion’. ho ho

H.R.
March 28, 2014 11:10 am

“Oops! Our bad. We can’t give back your money. We spent it. Send more so we can fix the problems we caused.”
Sigh… I can’t even muster a primal scream any more.

Robert Wykoff
March 28, 2014 11:12 am

If a couple of degrees planet wide can cause so many species to become extinct, it is a wonder any life exists on this planet at all

JimS
March 28, 2014 11:17 am

Not so fast. Didn’t global warming make the Dodo and Passenger Pigeon extinct? Global warming is so flexible, given that it even produces record-breaking cold and snowy seasons, who is to say it can’t go back to the past and make species extinct. Hey, how about the Woolly Mammoth, the sabre-toothed cats, and the Aurochs, etc.

March 28, 2014 11:23 am

Looks to me lke the only species in immediate danger is the Whooping Crane – but from wind turbines designed to fight global warming. Ironic that global warming fears and actions are what is leading to the only species extinctions.

tadchem
March 28, 2014 11:26 am

200 % of nothing is nothing.

David in Michigan
March 28, 2014 11:28 am

I thought this was somewhat settled already, in 2011 (another model):
The most widely used methods for calculating species extinction rates are “fundamentally flawed” and overestimate extinction rates by as much as 160 percent, life scientists report May 19 in the journal Nature.
However, while the problem of species extinction caused by habitat loss is not as dire as many conservationists and scientists had believed, the global extinction crisis is real, says Stephen Hubbell, a distinguished professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at UCLA and co-author of the Nature paper.
“The methods currently in use to estimate extinction rates are erroneous, but we are losing habitat faster than at any time over the last 65 million years,” said Hubbell, a tropical forest ecologist and a senior staff scientist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. “The good news is that we are not in quite as serious trouble right now as people had thought, but that is no reason for complacency. I don’t want this research to be misconstrued as saying we don’t have anything to worry about when nothing is further from the truth.”
Because there are very few ways of directly estimating extinction rates, scientists and conservationists have used an indirect method called a “species-area relationship.” This method starts with the number of species found in a given area and then estimates how the number of species grows as the area expands. Using that information, scientists and conservationists have reversed the calculations and attempted to estimate how many fewer species will remain when the amount of land decreases due to habitat loss.
“There is a forward version when we add species and a backward version when we lose species,” Hubbell said. “In the Nature paper, we show that this surrogate measure is fundamentally flawed. The species-area curve has been around for more than a century, but you can’t just turn it around to calculate how many species should be left when the area is reduced; the area you need to sample to first locate a species is always less than the area you have to sample to eliminate the last member of the species.
“The overestimates can be very substantial. The way people have defined ‘extinction debt’ (species that face certain extinction) by running the species-area curve backwards is incorrect, but we are not saying an extinction debt does not exist.”
How confident is Hubbell in the findings, which he made with ecologist and lead author Fangliang He, a professor at China’s Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou and at Canada’s University of Alberta?
“100 percent,” he said. “The mathematical proof is in our paper.”

Steve from Rockwood
March 28, 2014 11:28 am

Wanted: Climate Scientists to write technical reports for the IPCC on Global Warming.
Qualifications: Must be able to walk backward.

Hangtown Bob
March 28, 2014 11:31 am

‘no evidence climate change has led to even a single species becoming extinct’
I strongly disagree with this. I am certain that global warming led to the ultimate extinction of both mastodons and wooly mammoths.

albertalad
March 28, 2014 11:32 am

Correct – not a single AGW nut went extent.

March 28, 2014 11:33 am

Reblogged this on This Got My Attention and commented:
All that scary talk and it was all in their imagination.

David in Michigan
March 28, 2014 11:37 am

I should have made clearer in my previous post that my understanding was “Global Warming = Loss of Habitat”. (It is true however that land use changes also lead to loss of habitat.)

Mark Bofill
March 28, 2014 11:43 am

There is a shortage of evidence, a draft version claims.

Honesty from the IPCC?
Heh.
It’s only a draft version. They’ll fix it.

Tom G(ologist)
March 28, 2014 11:51 am

“… for tis the sport to have the engineer hoist with his own petard.”

Walt The Physicist
March 28, 2014 11:54 am

Regarding honesty of the IPCC and of those many who feed from the same trough:
Just heard on NPR this afternoon a news piece about free course offering – massive open online course (MOOC)- taught by Professor Richard Alley. He was presented by NPR as Nobel Prize winner and when I went to check here what is there :
http://faces.psu.edu/faces/dr-richard-alley/
This is the same “prize” as his colleague, Dr. Mann, received in 2007 “together” with IPCC and Al Gore.

March 28, 2014 11:58 am

So remind me again why people put much stock in the work of Arrhenius?

Jimbo
March 28, 2014 12:00 pm

So the IPCC admits no evidenc of extinctions caused by man-made climate change. Past climate change was very kind to species too.

Abstract
Biological extinction in earth history
Virtually all plant and animal species that have ever lived on the earth are extinct. For this reason alone, extinction must play an important role in the evolution of life. The five largest mass extinctions of the past 600 million years are of greatest interest, but there is also a spectrum of smaller events, many of which indicate biological systems in profound stress. Extinction may be episodic at all scales, with relatively long periods of stability alternating with short-lived extinction events. Most extinction episodes are biologically selective, and further analysis of the victims and survivors offers the greatest chance of deducing the proximal causes of extinction. A drop in sea level and climatic change are most frequently invoked to explain mass extinctions, but new theories of collisions with extraterrestrial bodies are gaining favor. Extinction may be constructive in a Darwinian sense or it may only perturb the system by eliminating those organisms that happen to be susceptible to geologically rare stresses.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/231/4745/1528.short

Here is an Essay in Nature

Concept Extinction: past and present
The fossil record, together with modern data, can provide a deeper understanding of biological extinction and its consequences.
Extinction is a fundamental part of nature — more than 99% of all species that ever lived are now extinct. Whereas the loss of ‘redundant’ species may be barely perceptible, more extensive losses of whole populations, groups of related species (clades) or those that share particular morphologies (for example, large body sizes) or functional attributes such as feeding mechanisms, can have profound effects, leading to the collapse of entire ecosystems and the extermination of great evolutionary dynasties.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v427/n6975/full/427589a.html

Bob Diaz
March 28, 2014 12:01 pm

Abound the only things that could become extinct if all the AGW alarmists get their way is freedom and the middle class!

Jimbo
March 28, 2014 12:03 pm

“increased extinction risk for a substantial number of species during and beyond the 21st century”

Why?

Abstract
Carlos Jaramillo et. al – Science – 12 November 2010
Effects of Rapid Global Warming at the Paleocene-Eocene Boundary on Neotropical Vegetation
Temperatures in tropical regions are estimated to have increased by 3° to 5°C, compared with Late Paleocene values, during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, 56.3 million years ago) event. We investigated the tropical forest response to this rapid warming by evaluating the palynological record of three stratigraphic sections in eastern Colombia and western Venezuela. We observed a rapid and distinct increase in plant diversity and origination rates, with a set of new taxa, mostly angiosperms, added to the existing stock of low-diversity Paleocene flora. There is no evidence for enhanced aridity in the northern Neotropics. The tropical rainforest was able to persist under elevated temperatures and high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in contrast to speculations that tropical ecosystems were severely compromised by heat stress.
doi: 10.1126/science.1193833
—————-
Abstract
Carlos Jaramillo & Andrés Cárdenas – Annual Reviews – May 2013
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute
Global Warming and Neotropical Rainforests: A Historical Perspective
There is concern over the future of the tropical rainforest (TRF) in the face of global warming. Will TRFs collapse? The fossil record can inform us about that. Our compilation of 5,998 empirical estimates of temperature over the past 120 Ma indicates that tropics have warmed as much as 7°C during both the mid-Cretaceous and the Paleogene. We analyzed the paleobotanical record of South America during the Paleogene and found that the TRF did not expand toward temperate latitudes during global warm events, even though temperatures were appropriate for doing so, suggesting that solar insolation can be a constraint on the distribution of the tropical biome. Rather, a novel biome, adapted to temperate latitudes with warm winters, developed south of the tropical zone. The TRF did not collapse during past warmings; on the contrary, its diversity increased. The increase in temperature seems to be a major driver in promoting diversity.
doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105403
—————-
Abstract
PNAS – David R. Vieites – 2007
Rapid diversification and dispersal during periods of global warming by plethodontid salamanders
…Salamanders underwent rapid episodes of diversification and dispersal that coincided with major global warming events during the late Cretaceous and again during the Paleocene–Eocene thermal optimum. The major clades of plethodontids were established during these episodes, contemporaneously with similar phenomena in angiosperms, arthropods, birds, and mammals. Periods of global warming may have promoted diversification and both inter- and transcontinental dispersal in northern hemisphere salamanders…
—————-
Abstract
ZHAO Yu-long et al – Advances in Earth Science – 2007
The impacts of the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM)event on earth surface cycles and its trigger mechanism
The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) event is an abrupt climate change event that occurred at the Paleocene-Eocene boundary. The event led to a sudden reversal in ocean overturning along with an abrupt rise in sea surface salinity (SSSs) and atmospheric humidity. An unusual proliferation of biodiversity and productivity during the PETM is indicative of massive fertility increasing in both oceanic and terrestrial ecosystems. Global warming enabled the dispersal of low-latitude populations into mid-and high-latitude. Biological evolution also exhibited a dramatic pulse of change, including the first appearance of many important groups of ” modern” mammals (such as primates, artiodactyls, and perissodactyls) and the mass extinction of benlhic foraminifera…..
22(4) 341-349 DOI: ISSN: 1001-8166 CN: 62-1091/P
—————-
Abstract
Systematics and Biodiversity – Volume 8, Issue 1, 2010
Kathy J. Willis et al
4 °C and beyond: what did this mean for biodiversity in the past?
How do the predicted climatic changes (IPCC, 2007) for the next century compare in magnitude and rate to those that Earth has previously encountered? Are there comparable intervals of rapid rates of temperature change, sea-level rise and levels of atmospheric CO2 that can be used as analogues to assess possible biotic responses to future change? Or are we stepping into the great unknown? This perspective article focuses on intervals in time in the fossil record when atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased up to 1200 ppmv, temperatures in mid- to high-latitudes increased by greater than 4 °C within 60 years, and sea levels rose by up to 3 m higher than present. For these intervals in time, case studies of past biotic responses are presented to demonstrate the scale and impact of the magnitude and rate of such climate changes on biodiversity. We argue that although the underlying mechanisms responsible for these past changes in climate were very different (i.e. natural processes rather than anthropogenic), the rates and magnitude of climate change are similar to those predicted for the future and therefore potentially relevant to understanding future biotic response. What emerges from these past records is evidence for rapid community turnover, migrations, development of novel ecosystems and thresholds from one stable ecosystem state to another, but there is very little evidence for broad-scale extinctions due to a warming world. Based on this evidence from the fossil record, we make four recommendations for future climate-change integrated conservation strategies.
DOI: 10.1080/14772000903495833

Jimbo
March 28, 2014 12:08 pm

Uncritically blaming climate change for species extinction is dangerous, Kinzelbach adds. Such an approach could transform climate change into a cheap excuse for failing to address pressing problems. “Monocultures, over-fertilization and soil destruction wipe out more species than a temperature rise of a few degrees Celsius,” he says.

Environmentalists are failing in their duties. They have decided to become lazy, blame co2 and scream. Meanwhile the environment suffers while being helped somewhat by our added added co2 fertilization.

KNR
March 28, 2014 12:18 pm

No problem , its ‘will ‘ not ‘has’ which means they can always claim their right because ‘it could happen’ heads I win tails you lose . No science involved are indeed wanted .

March 28, 2014 12:26 pm

“There is a shortage of evidence, a draft version claims.”
There always will be, when there is none.

Jimbo
March 28, 2014 12:28 pm

“At most, the draft report says, climate change may have played a role in the disappearance of a few amphibians, fresh water fish and mollusks.

Objection your honor! I will need to see the peer reviewed evidence that shows this role. Probably chytrid disease Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis for the amphibians.

Latitude
March 28, 2014 12:34 pm

When people are allowed to classify some small remote population…with one feather out of place….as a new species

1 2 3
Verified by MonsterInsights